HOME PAGE > Your answers to the questionnaire > on the Constituent Charter

on the Constituent Charter

answer from Robert WHEELER, Allie. United States , 18 August 2005

| read all the answers from Robert WHEELER |

In describing how the Alliance differs from other similar networks and efforts, I think that an important point or characteristic was left out and should be added. This would be that: it is distinguished from other networks in that it is based upon the idea of developing a structural and organizational framework that can take us into a Responsible, Plural, and United World. This framework would be the development of Collegial, Geographic, and Substantive Working Group which develop initiatives and proposals covering all issue areas and sectors of society and which are interlinked with one another. Thus we are imagining, designing, and taking the first steps towards actually creating the new future.

In terms of the Alliance Annals I think it would be good to define who will coordinate this project, how will the group do its work, how will they get the materials needed to do their job, and how will we make sure that important parts of the Alliance’s activities are not left out. Will the FPH take on the responsibility of making sure that this project is well carried out?

The idea of producing and distributing quarterly summaries of Alliance activities is also an excellent idea; but will also need to be coordinated and will probably required a good deal of persistence by someone to pull it all together and to get the input needed to do it right. This will thus need to be institutionalized

The rule about posting new initiatives on the Website is not very well defined; and the month time period for consideration may not be sufficient to get much of a response. I would suggest that we either send a listing of such initiatives out on an email list when they come in or extend the period of consideration to 2 months. Also, it needs to be clearer as to what is acceptable in terms of an objection. Could a handful, or even a significant minority, of people say no to and block an initiative which most of us welcome and agree to? We need to have a means of openly responding to and discussing objections.

The matter of use of the Logo could become somewhat problematic. For example, those people who are working on the Charter of Human Responsibilities could develop, post, and distribute a lot of documents. Would they have to post all of them on the Alliance website? Perhaps well established initiatives of the Alliance would not have to post everything on the website before they could begin to distribute them. Also, say a Citizens Alliance is active in the area of global governance. There are some allies that do not think that we should try to establish a World Parliament or an international rule of law. Should an Alliance Working Group that is active in this area have to say that not everyone in the Alliance supports these things in its brochure?

I would agree that papers and reports should include various points of view and reflect the diversity that exists within the Alliance; but I don’t think that promotional materials should have to do this. If most of the Allies would support an initiative or project then we should be able to promote it without having to say that a few Allies don’t support it. Otherwise we will just be stuck with the tyranny of the minority.

 

 

- Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World -
- Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind -